Ergodicity is the property of a system in which within a given average time, a system visits all possible states.

A simple example is in a sealed container of some kind of gas. Depending on temperature, the locations of all particles inside will fill the space pretty quickly.

When the energy in an ergodic system is low, a snapshot of a given state of the system, assuming you can capture the velocity and direction of the state changes, you can probably model it faster than it iterates.

Think of a tube with a rubber ball inside, in micro or zero gravity. A modern computer could tell you the final resting state from only the initial impulse given to the system.

If the systems ergodicity is too high, that is, you cannot measure it precisely enough in time and/or space to catch one average cycle, then you have a system that would be said to be unpredictable, like the Poisson point process of radioactive decay, or the finding of a valid bitcoin block.

Think of a transparent ball, with a dice inside it.

If you gently roll it, you can predictably flip it to one of its 5 other states by rolling the ball until the center of gravity and friction of it's current position is overcome and the state change is both orderly and predictable.

But if you roll the ball too fast, or shake it, even just one sharp punt, the cube could run through every possible state (face perpendicular to the ball's inner surface) so fast it can't be captured in a definite state by a 60fps camera, then we certainly could not predict the motion that will result, and certainly not the final resting state after the system dissipates it's imbued inertia.

The emission of alpha and beta particles by Schroedinger's Cat Murdering Box radioactive atom is from a Poisson point process, which in this case means that because we can't know when this atom was born, we don't have the first clue when it might, on average, decay and emit.

The decay process is random because outside influences add, and subtract, to and from the energy threshold required to topple the structure that holds the particle in orbit. It ergodicity might be low, but it's state change probability is a black box.

The ball with cube, it also becomes a random event when enough energy is added, like the origami-metal spring of the Scrabble enclosed dice, even given accurate measure of initial inputs, if they are high enough, again our camera, and thus prediction computer, cannot beat the system to it's final state.

There is some differences between these things, but both of them hinge on the energy levels, and capturing the moment of impulse, and specifically, being able to sample the data fast enough to get both position and velocity at the same time.

So, Schroedinger's Cat is about an ergodic system that we don't have the starting moment when the energy was added, so we can't possibly predict when it will decay, not to mention it's lability to external energies.

The dice, it just moves to fast to capture that impulse as both direction and speed, and thus it is "random"

Random just means the systems state is too fast, too energetic, and in the former case, of unknown progression towards completing a cycle of ergodicity.

The quantum superposition idea is as retarded as the child who thinks their mother has disappeared when they cover their eyes, or like the bug Blatter beast of kraal and using one's towel as a blindfold, thinking you can't see them and thus they don't have to attack.

In my opinion.

Because it is precisely rejecting the very premise of science - that given sufficiently precise preconditions, a phenomena can be caused to occur on demand.

This premise is ancient. This premise long precedes our species, because you can see corvids, almost anywhere on the planet, using tools and rituals to get predictable results, like dropping nuts onto rocks to crack them open. They have been doing it since long before our debut as a species.

No. Schroedinger's Cat does not demonstrate that the system is impossibly random. Just that nothing can be predicted without sufficient precision of the state and inputs altering the state.

My father used to say to me that it is impossible to measure something precisely without a smaller thing composing the structure of the sensor. As in, you can't catch a photon or electron, as nothing inert exists that is smaller.

My father was no kind of scientist, but like me he was curious to learn, and was not blinkered by convention, and like all theists, just don't buy the wibbly wobbly quantum model.

Einstein also rejected much of the quantum model, and funny enough another quantum doubter was Lewis Carrol, who was also, like me and my dad, and Einstein, polymaths. Capable of relating multiple complex models to each other.

It's not that much of quantum physics is wrong. On the contrary. It's models produce accurate predictions.

But it's not spooky parallel universes and superposition of these spooks. It's just probability, and the much later developed field of chaos theory, which is basically mathematical, deterministic feedback equations that rapidly diverge from immeasurable differences of starting inputs.

And there is another principle to mention, that being Nyquist's digital sampling theory. In order to reproduce a signal, you must capture at least 2x the precision of the required fidelity, ie, for human ears, the sample rate must be at least 36000 to get reasonable fidelity at 19000hz, and thus we got 44100 for CD and 48000 for DVD.

The more dimensions in the signal also becomes an exponent on top of this simple doubling. Even the motion of a dice has several more dimensions related to how many ways it can dissipate energy.

Saying you can only detect either direction or position of a photon doesn't mean there are spooks in orderly physical phenomena - but rather, our best sensors are way way way to imprecise to capture both things out of one photon, and certainly not without also then altering the inputs that lead to the next resting state of the system.